Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2021

Antetokounmpo v. Florville

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:20-cv-10558
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Antetokounmpo v. Florville, Judge Stein denied Antetokounmpo’s request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference, which remained scheduled for February 8, 2021.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Giannis Antetokounmpo and Defendant Florville were affected by the order requiring the initial pretrial conference to proceed as scheduled.

What happened

In Antetokounmpo v. Florville, the plaintiff filed the complaint on December 14, 2020, and served the defendant on December 19, 2020. The plaintiff said the defendant’s answer was due January 11, 2021, and that the court clerk entered a certificate of default on January 12, 2021.

The plaintiff asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference or change it into a conference about an expected request for a judgment because the defendant had not answered or otherwise defended. The plaintiff said he intended to seek a default judgment under the federal civil rules and the court’s local rules.

Judge Sidney Stein denied the request to postpone the conference. The court ordered that the initial pretrial conference take place as scheduled on February 8, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Antetokounmpo v. Florville · No. 1:20-cv-10558
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
Feb. 3, 2021

Background

Plaintiff Giannis Antetokounmpo’s counsel submitted a letter concerning the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 8,

  1. The complaint was filed on December 14,
  2. According to the letter, Defendant Florville was personally served on December 19, 2020; proof of service was filed on December 23, 2020; and the answer was due on January 11,
  3. The clerk issued a certificate of default on January 12, 2021, after the plaintiff applied for one.

Plaintiff’s request

The plaintiff requested that the court adjourn the initial pretrial conference or convert it into a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion for default judgment. The letter stated that the plaintiff intended to seek default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), Local Civil Rule 55.2(b), and Rule 4 of Judge Stein’s Individual Practices. The letter also explained the two-step default process: entry of default followed, when appropriate, by entry of a default judgment. The court did not decide the anticipated motion for default judgment in this order.

Ruling

Judge Sidney Stein denied the request to adjourn the conference. The initial pretrial conference was ordered to take place as scheduled on February 8, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The order did not state a separate disposition on the request to convert the conference into a pre-motion conference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.